The case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Julius Blum GmbH against Arturo Salice S.p.A. regarding a European patent (EP 3 392 438) related to a furniture hinge used in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia. In response, Arturo Salice S.p.A. filed a counterclaim seeking the invalidation of the same patent claims. The proceedings included preparations for oral hearings, discussions on procedural matters, and the setting of litigation value. A preliminary cost-sharing agreement was also reached. The decision also addressed various procedural matters like the submission of late arguments, use of multimedia during hearings, and translation requirements for the Italian-speaking representatives of the defendants.
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Paris Local Division handles a case involving Sun Patent Trust (claimant) against Vivo Mobile Communication entities (defendants) concerning the alleged infringement of European Patent No. EP3852468, owned by the claimant. The claimant seeks damages of 5 million euros for the alleged infringement, which the defendants do not contest. The case also involves a counterclaim for revocation. The panel comprises judges with expertise in legal and technical aspects.
UPC Publication Date:07/30/2026
Summarized:08/01/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Paris (FR) Local Division
Parties:Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP3852468
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Claim InterpretationValidity of PatentPatent InfringementFRAND Defense
The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court conducted an interim conference on July 29, 2026, addressing the infringement case (UPC_CFI_362/2025) filed by Sun Patent Trust against Vivo Mobile Communication entities, with a counterclaim for patent revocation (UPC_CFI_001786/2025). The patent in dispute is EP3407524, held by Sun Patent Trust. During the conference, both parties were open to negotiations and confirmed the value in dispute as 10 million euros, evenly split between the infringement action and the counterclaim. Confidentiality issues were discussed, particularly regarding FRAND matters, leading to planned public and non-public hearings. The main legal points include claim interpretation, patent validity focusing on added matter, and alleged infringement by Vivo's 4G+ compatible devices. A detailed schedule for the oral hearing in September 2026 was outlined. The order demands submissions by August 28, 2026, on consolidated requests and recoverable costs.
UPC Publication Date:07/30/2026
Summarized:08/01/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Paris (FR) Local Division
Parties:Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP3407524
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Claim interpretationPatent validityInfringementFRAND defense
On July 30, 2026, the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court ruled on a preliminary objection filed by Viatris Santé amidst an infringement action by Merz against Viatris. Viatris sought to stay proceedings and redirect jurisdiction to the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris, invoking Articles of the Brussels I recast Regulation and UPC Rules of Procedure. Merz argued against lis pendens, stating the UPC was seized first, and claimed exclusive jurisdiction. Merz also contended the criteria for related actions, like risk of irreconcilable judgments, were unmet. The case centered around French SPC No. 13C0033 and the EP No. 2 377 536 patent related to the drug FAMPRIDINE VIATRIS LP 10 mg. The court maintained its proceedings.
UPC Publication Date:07/30/2026
Summarized:08/01/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Paris (FR) Local Division
Parties:Merz Pharma France, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Viatris Santé
Winning Party:Merz Pharma France et al
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP No. 2 377 536
Patent Title:FAMPRIDINE VIATRIS LP 10 mg
Grounds for decision:Lis pendensExclusive jurisdiction under UPCABrussels I recast Regulation
This procedural order from the Local Division in The Hague of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court relates to a patent dispute involving the patent EP2047617, owned by IMRENDITORE PTY LIMITED. The claimant, Qord IP Protection LLC, is engaged in proceedings against multiple defendants, including SmartThings, Inc., and various arms of Samsung Electronics. The order documents a pre-trial agreement regarding the timeline for submitting the Statement of Defence and any Counterclaim for revocation, which is to be aligned for all defendants on 26 October 2026. Dr. Jan Ebersohl will provide representation for all defendants, consolidating legal representation. The judge-rapporteur, Robert van Peursem, confirms the alignment of dates per rule, facilitating streamlined proceedings.
UPC Publication Date:07/30/2026
Summarized:08/01/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:The Hague (NL) Local Division
Parties:Qord IP Protection LLC v. SmartThings, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP2047617
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Agreement between PartiesProcedural Alignment
In a legal decision by the Milan Local Division, Biopsafe ApS, a Danish company, filed an infringement action against the Italian company Kaltek S.R.L. concerning patents EP'617, EP'401, and EP'132. Kaltek countered with a revocation claim for two of these patents and sought a security for costs due to concerns about Biopsafe's alleged financial instability.
UPC Publication Date:07/30/2026
Summarized:07/30/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Milan (IT) Local Division
Parties:Biopsafe ApS v. Kaltek s.r.l.
Winning Party:Biopsafe ApS
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 720 617 B2; EP 3 061 401 B1; EP 3 653 132 B1
Patent Title:EP'617; EP'401; EP'132
Grounds for decision:Insufficient evidence of financial riskValid market valuation of Biopsafe
In this case, KEEEX SAS filed a lawsuit for patent infringement against several defendants, including Adobe and OpenAI, concerning their alleged infringement of KEEEX's patent EP2949070. The court issued a procedural order rejecting KEEEX's request to modify the patent and declaring certain attempts to expand the infringement claims inadmissible. The decision was based on procedural rules that restrict changes to the claim after a certain period.
UPC Publication Date:07/29/2026
Summarized:07/30/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Paris (FR) Local Division
Parties:KEEEX SAS v. ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
Winning Party:Defendants (Adobe, OpenAI, and others)
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP2949070
Patent Title:Not specified in excerpt
Grounds for decision:Procedural rules R.30.2, R.9.2, R.263 of procedural rules (RdP)Adherence to previous jurisprudenceTimeliness of submissionChange of demand inadmissibility
Prinoth S.p.A. filed a lawsuit against Xelom s.r.l. seeking an inspection order to protect patents EP2507436 and EP1995159. The court granted the inspection but limited the scope. Prinoth claimed that key evidence was missing from the inspection, which hindered proving infringement, especially related to software and technical documentation.
UPC Publication Date:07/29/2026
Summarized:07/30/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Milan (IT) Local Division
Parties:Prinoth S.p.A. v. Xelom s.r.l.
Winning Party:Prinoth S.p.A.
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP2507436, EP1995159
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Inspection needed to verify patent infringementInsufficient evidence collected in previous rounds
The UPC Local Division in Lisbon issued a decision concerning the infringement dispute over EP 2 819 131 between Ericsson and AsusTek. The dispute involved infringement claims filed by Ericsson and a counterclaim for revocation by AsusTek.
UPC Publication Date:07/29/2026
Summarized:07/30/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Lisbon (PT) Local Division
Parties:TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. ASUSTek Computer Inc. , Digital River Ireland Ltd.
Winning Party:TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 819 131
Patent Title:Unknown Title
Grounds for decision:Settlement Confirmation Rule 365Infringement upheldCounterclaim for revocation dismissed
The Milan Local Division denied Cardo Systems' request to shorten the deadline for the defendants, Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co. and Resosport Limited (jointly Reso Group), to file their statements of defense. Cardo filed an infringement action and the deadline issue arose due to protocol around the service of proceedings. Resosport, based in Hong Kong, had not completed service and the court ruling allowed for an aligned timeline extension for both defendants, providing them with a uniform deadline of 10 September 2026 for their filings. Cardo argued that this extension contradicted the UPC's swift dispute resolution goals, as it effectively gave the defendants more time. However, the court ruled this did not violate procedural good faith principles, ensuring both an orderly and efficient process. Consequently, the court dismissed Cardo's application and upheld the judge-rapporteur's balanced compromise dated 10 July 2026.
In this legal decision, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf dealt with a request for file inspection filed by an attorney interested in accessing the case records of Dolby International AB against Optoma entities concerning a patent EP 3 605 534. The main proceedings were concluded earlier with the withdrawal of the lawsuit by the plaintiff and acceptance by the defendants. The applicant, a lawyer, sought access to the records for professional interest related to FRAND issues in audio coding. However, the court partially denied full access due to confidentiality concerns and the potential impact on ongoing parallel proceedings. The court ruled that certain documents, especially those containing confidential negotiation details, should be redacted or remain inaccessible to protect the integrity of proceedings. The request was rejected, particularly in relation to confidential sections.
UPC Publication Date:07/28/2026
Summarized:07/30/2026
Type:Generic
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:Name not displayed for GDPR reasons. Represented by Lars-Oliver EGGERSDORFER v. Dolby International AB, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd., Optoma Corporation
Winning Party:Optoma
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 605 534
Patent Title:Audiocoding FRAND-related
Grounds for decision:Confidentiality concernsProtection of judicial process integrity
This case involves a rectification order issued by the UPC Milan Local Division concerning a clerical error in a previous order. The order, dated July 22, 2026, contained a mistake in the value of a counterclaim for revocation. Initially, it was recorded as EUR 1,850,000, but the correct value should be EUR 1,875,000. Both parties, Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH and Danieli & C. S.P.A., were notified about the intended rectification and expressed no objections. The decision was made by presiding judge Pierluigi Perrotti.
UPC Publication Date:07/28/2026
Summarized:07/28/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Milan (IT) Local Division
Parties:Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v. Danieli & C. S.P.A.
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:N/A
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Rectification of clerical error
ASTES4 SA, the claimant, filed an infringement action against Bystronic Laser AG, Bystronic Austria GmbH, Bystronic Italia S.r.l., and Isochronic AG related to patent EP2164678, concerned with a 'loading/unloading system.' The defendants requested a change of the language of the proceedings from Italian to English, as the English language was used predominantly in pre-litigation and is the language of the patent. ASTES4 SA opposed, emphasizing the suitability of Italian and the inconvenience of changing languages. The President of the Court considered Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP and interpreted that an early application is permissible. It was held that the application was admissible, ensuring efficiency in proceedings.
UPC Publication Date:07/28/2026
Summarized:07/30/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Milan (IT) Local Division
Parties:ASTES4 SA v. BYSTRONIC LASER AG, BYSTRONIC AUSTRIA GMBH, BYSTRONIC ITALIA S.R.L, ISOCHRONIC AG
Winning Party:Bystronic and Isochronic (Defendants)
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP2164678
Patent Title:Loading/unloading system serving a sheet cutting centre and relative handling method
Grounds for decision:R. 323.3 interpreted to allow early language change applicationArt. 49(5) UPCA does not restrict early application for language change
RemediesLanguage of proceedings changed to English
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement claim by CJ CheilJedang Corporation against Eppen Netherlands B.V. and its affiliated companies over patent EP3508580. The defendants sought to extend the deadline for their Statement of Defence and a stay of proceedings, arguing that test results of samples were pending. CJ CheilJedang, opposing this, indicated imminent availability of the results. An extension of 6 weeks post-receipt of CJ's test results was granted. If results suggest infringement, defendants may conduct further testing. Parties might agree on independent lab tests. Additionally, access to technical documentation by an independent expert may be arranged. Remedies discussed include deadlines and access to evidence.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order to stay proceedings in the case between Beko and Dolby regarding the infringement of patent EP 3 605 534. Both parties have reached a settlement agreement and have agreed to withdraw their claims once obligations are fulfilled. The court granted the stay as requested jointly by the parties, allowing them to inform the court once the settlement obligations are complete. If needed, either party can request to resume the proceedings.
UPC Publication Date:07/28/2026
Summarized:07/28/2026
Type:Appeal
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v. Dolby International AB
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 605 534
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Settlement AgreementJoint Request for Stay
In a case involving Dolby International and Beko regarding Patent EP 3 605 534, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ordered a stay of proceedings for both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision follows a settlement agreement between the parties, with Dolby and Beko agreeing to withdraw their respective claims after fulfilling the settlement obligations. The stay was ordered upon the joint request of both parties, as permitted under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure.
UPC Publication Date:07/28/2026
Summarized:07/28/2026
Type:Appeal
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v. Dolby International AB
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 605 534
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Settlement agreement reached by partiesJoint request for stay
On July 27, 2026, the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court addressed a revocation action concerning European patent no EP 3 802 413 B1. The dispute involved SYPOX GmbH, which claimed SME status, and Topsoe A/S. A central issue was whether Topsoe could access an unredacted Investment Agreement (D36) that might refute SYPOX's claimed status. SYPOX had withdrawn the unredacted document from the proceedings, opting to rely on a redacted version (D36R). The court agreed, declaring D36 as not part of the evidence and dismissing Topsoe's access requests to D36 due to insufficient legal interest and an emphasis on confidentiality.
UPC Publication Date:07/27/2026
Summarized:07/28/2026
Type:Revocation
Court:Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
Parties:SYPOX GmbH v. Topsoe A/S
Winning Party:SYPOX GmbH
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 802 413 B1
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Confidentiality concernsLack of legal interest to access unredacted document
The Intermediate Court of Munich has issued an order granting Reinhausen GmbH the right to inspect and secure evidence against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. Reinhausen claims that the defendant's product exhibited at a trade fair in Berlin infringes on their European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1. The court allows Reinhausen to dismantle, photograph, and electrically measure parts of the product in question, in presence of a bailiff and experts, to determine if a patent violation occurred.
UPC Publication Date:07/27/2026
Summarized:07/27/2026
Type:Provisional measures
Court:Munich (DE) Local Division
Parties:Reinhausen GmbH v. Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
Winning Party:Reinhausen GmbH
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 427 283 B1
Patent Title:Selector for Load Tap Changer and Load Tap Changer with Load Switch and Selector
Grounds for decision:Suspicion of Patent Infringement
In a case before the Munich Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court, a legal order was issued to allow an inspection and evidence preservation relating to a patent dispute involving Reinhausen GmbH and Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. The disputed patent, European Patent No. EP 3 427 283 B1, pertains to a selector for a load tap changer. During the CWIEME exhibition in Berlin, Reinhausen requested an inspection of a product exhibited by Shanghai Huaming, identified as a potential infringement of their patent.
UPC Publication Date:07/27/2026
Summarized:07/27/2026
Type:Provisional measures
Court:Munich (DE) Local Division
Parties:Reinhausen GmbH v. Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
Winning Party:Reinhausen GmbH
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 427 283 B1
Patent Title:Selector for a Load Tap Changer
Grounds for decision:Inspection and Evidence PreservationPotential Patent Infringement
This case was held in the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court between Reinhausen GmbH and Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. Reinhausen GmbH, the owner of the European Patent EP 3 427 284 B1, filed for an inspection order regarding a load tap changer device exhibited by the defendant at a trade show in Berlin, suspecting patent infringement. The court granted the inspection and evidence preservation request without prior notification to the defendant, allowing technical experts to examine the device, dismantle it if necessary, and document the process to determine if it infringes on the plaintiff's patent.
UPC Publication Date:07/27/2026
Summarized:07/27/2026
Type:Provisional measures
Court:Munich (DE) Local Division
Parties:Reinhausen GmbH v. Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
Winning Party:Reinhausen GmbH
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 427 284 B1
Patent Title:Load Tap Changer
Grounds for decision:Patent Infringement SuspicionArt. 60 EPGÜRule 192, 199 RoP